UNESCO is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, which is sort of the U.N.’s kumbaya wing; and part of it is the World Heritage Centre, which recognizes world sites of great historical and cultural importance and seeks to protect and preserve them. Among the 962 recognized World Heritage sites are Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, the historic center of Vienna, the Magao caves of China, the Acropolis, Israel’s Masada, the Pyramids of Egypt and, here in the States, Mammoth Cave, Yellowstone and the Statue of Liberty.

And now–let me get this straight–the Bordelais want to include a list of wineries? What am I failing to understand here?

The Classification was drawn up, let us remember, by wine brokers, who had been asked by the Emperor Napoleon to choose wines to display at a Paris exposition. It was nothing more nor less than a price list. True, it has assumed far more importance over the decades, but it’s hard to see how a “classification” can be included on a list of World Heritage sites. I suppose I might have more sympathy with the nomination if they had suggested Bordeaux itself as a region, rather than the 1855 Classification. But then, Bordeaux already received World Heritage status (in 2007), so what is it that the nominators are looking for, beyond that? All we have to go by is the Decanter story; I could find no additional information on the Internet. Here’s how the magazine quoted Phillippe Castéja, president of the Conseil des Grands Crus Classés, in explaining his group’s nomination:

The 1855 classification is the fruit of both natural and human factors and it has only gained in importance over time. Its value lies not just in the excellence of the wines, but the architectural richness its chateaux have brought to Bordeaux, the artisanal trades that it supports, from hand-picking of grapes to traditional vine pruning skills, to the renown that it has bought to France across the world.

This is true, as far as it goes, but Bordeaux’s architectural heritage already was honored in that 2007 World Heritage status, and it’s not clear to me (from an admittedly inadequate but nonetheless fairly closely scrutinized review of the existing list) that there are any other World Heritage sites that are devoted to “trades” and “skills,” as opposed to places. Nor is it clear from the Operational Guidelines whether such recognition is even possible.

It may be that the Bordelais are seeking recognition, not as a “natural heritage” (such as Mammoth Cave) but as a “cultural landscape,” which is allowed. The Guidelines define “cultural landscape” as, briefly, “the combined works of nature and man,” and as “illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time.” But it’s very hard to see how the 1855 Classification would qualify as a “cultural landscape” the way, say, the Honghe Hani Rice Terraces of China (which is currently nominated for Heritage status) are. It looks to me like the Bordelais, having achieved their World Heritage status six years ago, are looking to gild the lily.

Maybe I’m wrong. But if the 1855 Classification is worthy of World Heritage status, then so are the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I therefore officially nominate our founding documents.

I think it would be great, they would have to use the present boundaries and would then have to amend the UNESCO charter if say a 1st Growth bought his neighbour and wanted to include the grapes in his 1st Wine, which has happened on many occasions. The 1st growth of 1855 are not the exact same vineyards today.

Not sure why you would object to UNESCO recognition of historic wine-related properties as cultural landscapes. Champagne and Burgundy both sought UNESCO recognition on this basis, and per the Decanter piece, the Bourdeaux applicants will seek similar recognition. Moreover, Saint Emillion gained UNESCO World Heritage Status specifically for its “historic vineyard landscape” as well as the “intensive cultivation of grapes for wine production in a precisely defined region and the resulting landscape.” Are you arguing that the properties included in the 1855 classificaiton do not meet that standard?

John the Decanter article seems to say they’re seeking recognition of the 1855 Classification–not any places, but essentially a price list. Perhaps the article is misleading in that respect, but Decanter usually gets things right.

No, the article says that the Conseil des Grand Crus Classes en 1855 (an organization) plan on applying for World Heritage status for the wine landscape of Bordeaux similar to what climats of Burgundy and the cellars of Champagne are doing. The Bordeaux site you cite is for urban and architectural landscape of the city center (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1256). Quick Google search explains what “the nominators are looking for, beyond that”.

Yes, the article isn’t exactly perfectly clear, but obviously they aren’t applying for a list. The list they are applying for is for sites! I would assume that the CGCC would only want chateaux that are part of the 1855 classification to be part of the “site” because they are the cultural landscape created by the classification. Maybe we should wait until the application has been submitted for more details…

The frogs, damn, sorry, the french (mainly from Bordeaux) are the smartest folks ever who look the dumbest at first, second, and 100th sight. But they trick many smart-asses who think they’re on top when it comes to trading.

Bordeaux = two centuries selling many things over premium of the premium, but i expect this current bubble to start hissing before long.

The same applies for the cheese as the english one is better, but as poor marketers as they are, no one outside England knows how good their cheese is. And then again we buy french cheese for way more than they ought to cost (yes, these 5000 plus types of cheese are also delicious, but hella pricey).